San Joaquin County Government Bloghttp://blogs.esanjoaquin.com/san-joaquin-county-government-blog
From the San Joaquin Media Group.Wed, 22 Mar 2017 16:06:51 +0000enhourly1Winn not attending event with Ann Coulterhttp://feedproxy.google.com/~r/san-joaquin-county-government-blog/~3/Akfv4k-idpE/
http://blogs.esanjoaquin.com/san-joaquin-county-government-blog/2017/03/22/winn-not-attending-event-with-ann-coulter/#commentsWed, 22 Mar 2017 16:06:51 +0000Wes Bowershttp://blogs.esanjoaquin.com/san-joaquin-county-government-blog/?p=1515San Joaquin County Board of Supervisors chairman Chuck Winn emailed me after deadline Tuesday to let me know he will not be attending an April 28 event in Modesto where Ann Coulter will be a guest.
Yesterday, a few Hispanic residents of San Joaquin and Stanislaus counties asked our county supervisors not to attend the event hosted by the Stanislaus County Republican party.
In his email to me, Winn said he had not planned on attending the event before Manteca Al Moncada, and Modesto residents Rebecca Harrington and Maria Juarez-Moss addressed supervisors yesterday.
The trio condemned Coulter for her remarks regarding minorities and women, among other opinions the Conservative pundit holds.
So far, four of five supervisors have said they would not attend. Bob Elliott has not responded, and he was not present at yesterday’s meeting.
]]>0http://blogs.esanjoaquin.com/san-joaquin-county-government-blog/2017/03/22/winn-not-attending-event-with-ann-coulter/No one to ‘blame’ for the electionhttp://feedproxy.google.com/~r/san-joaquin-county-government-blog/~3/4-Xr_ISw10k/
http://blogs.esanjoaquin.com/san-joaquin-county-government-blog/2016/11/09/no-one-to-blame-for-the-election/#commentsWed, 09 Nov 2016 19:14:02 +0000Wes Bowershttp://blogs.esanjoaquin.com/san-joaquin-county-government-blog/?p=1513I usually don’t express my political views because I try to be as neutral as I can as a journalist. However, I wanted to give my thoughts about last night’s presidential election.
It seems on my personal Facebook page, a lot of my Democrat friends are posting their anger and looking for someone to blame, and that blame is solely directed at not only Trump supporters, but at Republicans in general.
I don’t think we should really be pointing the finger at anyone for what we witnessed this Election Day.
True, there were a lot of Republican constituents who were angry Obama was elected, hated all his proposals and policies, thought he was a Muslim or at least a Muslim sympathizer. And over his entire 8-year presidency, they remained angry at just about anything the man did.
in 2014, nearly a dozen Republicans announced their intention to run in 2016, claiming they heard what their constituents wanted, knew they were angry, and were going to take the country back.
And when Trump announced his candidacy 18 months ago, and came out swinging against the dozen or so fellow Republicans.
If those candidates really didn’t want him winning their party’s nomination, I really think they should have fought a little harder to keep him from winning.
After all his bullying and rhetoric, Republicans refused to stoop to his level, and I think their constituents saw that as a sign of weakness. Marco Rubio actually tried to fire back at Trump late in the game, which fired his camp up. However, days later he apologized and felt ashamed, and ultimately dropped out of the race.
I think the Republicans’ inability to go on the offensive against a political newbie hurt them in the end, but that’s just my opinion.
But I think Democrats and former Democrats played a part in last night’s results as well, and I think most of that is due to the Affordable Care Act.
When Obama announced his plans for overhauling our healthcare system, a lot of my liberal friends thought it was great, because we are going to get “free healthcare.”
But when the ACA passed, a lot of those friends were appalled to learn that if they didn’t have healthcare through their employer, they had to pay hundreds in premiums. They were under the impression we could sign up for healthcare at anytime — which wasn’t the case — and unaware that we’d be penalized on our tax returns if we hadn’t enrolled.
This angered quite a few Obama supporters I know, one of whom in 2014 admitted he was going to vote Republican all the way down the ticket during the next cycle because in his mind, the Obama administration lied to us.
Some of my friends received notices recently that those ACA costs are about to go up again, and this, I think, just added to their anger.
Overall, I think a lot of Democrats and Liberals were just as angry with the system as the Republicans and Conservatives, and that’s one of the factors of last night’s outcome.
There were a lot of Bernie Sanders supporters, too, who were upset Clinton won the primary, and could not bring themselves to jump on her bandwagon, even at the urge of their candidate to do so.
They thought the primary was rigged, and I think a lot of them looked to Trump — who was recently claiming the possibility of a rigged election — because he’d fight the system.
People on both sides of the political spectrum were angry at the system, and Trump played that to his advantage.
As a non-establishment Republican, he has promised not to cow-tow to lobbyists, improve the quality of life for Americans and reform the system so the people are heard, even though he ‘s presented no definite plan to do all of that.
We shouldn’t be looking to ‘blame’ anyone. We should look at the factors that caused such political upheaval in the first place.
The people wanted change 8 years ago and got it. And after those 8 years, they wanted another change. they certainly got it.
]]>0http://blogs.esanjoaquin.com/san-joaquin-county-government-blog/2016/11/09/no-one-to-blame-for-the-election/SEIU says mediation, or lack thereof, is cause for disruptionshttp://feedproxy.google.com/~r/san-joaquin-county-government-blog/~3/AHMhMqS5_mc/
http://blogs.esanjoaquin.com/san-joaquin-county-government-blog/2016/10/11/seiu-says-mediation-or-lack-thereof-is-cause-for-disruptions/#commentsTue, 11 Oct 2016 20:56:06 +0000Wes Bowershttp://blogs.esanjoaquin.com/san-joaquin-county-government-blog/?p=1511Last week, some Service Employees Union International 1021 members called me to tell me my article http://tinyurl.com/jkmpknq on how San Joaquin County will deal with future major disruptions at supervisors meetings wasn’t too sympathetic to their cause, and I’m erroneously making the county out to be the victim.
I was then told I was printing the whole story, because the county has allegedly refused to meet with the union after declaring an impasse in labor negotiations, and that’s the reason SEIU has disrupted supervisors meetings.
John Stead-Mendez, SEIU’s executive director, sent me five letters exchanged between the union’s legal team and the county’s legal team.
He also sent me a copy of the county’s ordinance with regards to declaring an impasse in negotiations, and said the county was in violation of it.
A Sept. 23 letter from the county’s legal team to the union’s legal team states both sides are at an impasse, and suggested a mediator might help negotiations as they progress.
In a Sept. 26 response letter, the union said it disagreed an impasse existed but it was willing to meet with a mediator, and requested mediation be scheduled within the week.
The union also contends because the county has steadfastily maintained its 6 percent raise over three years offer, that is unlawfully bargaining in bad faith.
It also called the county’s impasse declaration premature, which violates the Meyers-Milias-Brown Act – yet it wants to enter into the impasse procedure.
The county’s response on Oct. 3 said impasse proceedings can only be initiated after an impasse has been reached. The letter states that the union cannot ask for a mediation meeting until it agrees there is an impasse.
The union’s legal responded on Oct. 4, stating Section 12 (A)(1) of the county’s Employer-Employee Relations policy states the county or the exclusive representative must invoke the impasse procedure. The letter states that by the county claiming a deadlock exists, the county is the sole initiator of the process.
In addition, the letter states the Public Employees Relations Board would reject the idea that both parties have to agree a deadlock exists before entering into mediation.
Stead-Mendez also emailed me a copy of Section 12 (A)(1) of the county’s Employer-Employee Relations policy. It states:
“Only San Joaquin County or a recognized employee organization shall have the right to invoke the impasse procedure as herein described.”
Chapter 10 of the Meyers-Milias-Brown Act defines a recognized employee organization as “an employee organization which has been formally acknowledged by the public agency as an employee organization that represents employees of the public agency.”
I don’t know about you, but to me, that means a union, not a county’s exclusive representative.
The MMBA also states that:
“If after a reasonable period of time, representatives of the public agency and the recognized employee organization fail to reach agreement, the public agency and the recognized employee organization or recognized employee organizations together may agree upon the appointment of a mediator mutually agreeable to the parties.”
I couldn’t find anything in the MMBA requiring both parties to agree a deadlock exists before entering into impasse procedures.
However, the PERB’s rules for impasse procedures – found here: perb.ca.gov/forms/imp.pdf – state that requests for impasse determination and the appointment of a mediator may be filed jointly or by either party.
So, it would appear that the union could invoke an impasse as well.
According to Section 12 (B) of the county’s employer-employee relations policy, either the county or the recognized employee organization shall initiate the impasse procedure by filing with the other party a written statement of impasse, together with a statement of position on the disputed issues.
It would appear the Sept. 23 letter is the county’s impasse statement and filing with the union.
SO, Section 12 (B) further states that within 5 days of receipt of said written notice, a joint meeting shall be scheduled and held.
To me, that sounds like the union should have proposed a meeting time and date. However, in its Sept. 26 response, the union’s legal team waived that joint meeting.
County Counsel Mark Myles said since the issuance of the Sept. 23 letter, both sides have been discussing a joint meeting with a mediator, but with no results.
There will be more to come in this saga, no doubt.
]]>0http://blogs.esanjoaquin.com/san-joaquin-county-government-blog/2016/10/11/seiu-says-mediation-or-lack-thereof-is-cause-for-disruptions/Explaining yesterday’s wine ordinance vote.http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/san-joaquin-county-government-blog/~3/wI9IE-VMSYM/
http://blogs.esanjoaquin.com/san-joaquin-county-government-blog/2016/08/24/explaining-yesterdays-wine-ordinance-vote/#commentsWed, 24 Aug 2016 16:22:36 +0000Wes Bowershttp://blogs.esanjoaquin.com/san-joaquin-county-government-blog/?p=1509While San Joaquin County Supervisors yesterday unanimously voted to approve revisions to the county’s winery ordinance that defined events and set limits on guests and music, among others, the discussion to get there took a lot longer than you can imagine.
The final 5-0 was reached only after supervisors voted to amend some aspects of the proposed revisions. Those aspects included the sale of beer at events, limitations on guests at accessory winery events, requiring a parking attendant, and when outdoor music needs to end.
The following is a breakdown of how those votes were cast.
1. Allowing wineries to sell beer at events: Passed 4-1, with supervisor Chuck Winn dissenting. Some in attendance suggested selling beer in addition to wine at events would give non-wine drinkers something to drink, or slowly introduce non-wine drinkers to the beverage. Those who suggested the sale included Visit Lodi! CEO Nancy Beckman and Lodi attorney Trent Diehl, who represents the Lodi Association of Wineries.
Winn explained that the events in question were geared toward marketing a company’s wine. If a guest was not a wine drinker, Winn suggested they could drink either soda or water on site.
2. Limiting the number of guests at accessory events to 100: Failed 2-3 with supervisors Carlos Villapudua, Kathy Miller and Winn dissenting. Community Development Department staff recommended a cap at 80. The Lodi Association of Wineries wanted the cap at 120. Chair Moses Zapien and Supervisor Bob Elliot wanted to come to middle ground and suggested a cap at 100.
3. Limiting the number of guests at accessory events to 80: Passed 3-2, with Elliott and Villapudua dissenting. Elliott still wanted to reach a middle ground. Villapudua suggested not placing a cap on attendance, stating it felt like the regulation was unfairly punishing many of the wineries who had been following the ordinance from the beginning. He also noted that many wineries make most of their income off accessory events, and the county shouldn’t be regulating how much a winery stands to make.
4. Requiring parking one parking attendant for every 50 vehicles: Passed 5-0. Supervisors said attendants would make sure guests don’t park on roads or cause traffic issues, which was one of the reasons revisions to the ordinance were first sough in 2014.
5. Requiring outdoor music to end at 9 p.m.: Passed 3-2, with Villapudua and Elliott dissenting. Events will end at 10 p.m., but music has to stop an hour before that. Elliott and Villapudua said the ordinance should just have everything end at the same time across the board. Having music stop and hour early might confuse both wineries and residents, because typically, when music ends at any event or party, that means the event is over. If events are allowed to continue until 10 p.m., so should the music.
County staff will come back to supervisors in a year to see if these revisions are working or not.
]]>0http://blogs.esanjoaquin.com/san-joaquin-county-government-blog/2016/08/24/explaining-yesterdays-wine-ordinance-vote/SEIU storms county building, demands contracthttp://feedproxy.google.com/~r/san-joaquin-county-government-blog/~3/u2EVeY7ETAg/
http://blogs.esanjoaquin.com/san-joaquin-county-government-blog/2016/08/17/seiu-storms-county-building-demands-contract/#commentsWed, 17 Aug 2016 20:14:20 +0000Wes Bowershttp://blogs.esanjoaquin.com/san-joaquin-county-government-blog/?p=1500The local SEIU 1021 was back out in the streets again on Aug. 17. Members gathered in front of the San Joaquin County Administration Building at 44 N. San Joaquin St. at noon on for a rally, demanding the county’s labor negotiation team head back to the bargaining table with a better contract to offer more than 4,400 employees.
Union members who attended the rally, which was announced this morning, stormed to the sixth floor and parked themselves outside county administrator Monica Nino’s office.
There, union member chanted “2-2-2 just won’t do” and “What do we want? Contracts! When do we want them? Now!”
Nino never appeared, most likely because she and her staff were at lunch.
It has now been 48 days since the union’s most recent contract expired, prompting a three-day strike last month. Union members have since appeared at three San Joaquin County Board of Supervisors meetings and an evening work study session to demand the county fill more than 700 vacant positions, as well as offer a 13 percent wage increase over three years.
The county is offering a 6 percent wage increase over three years.
]]>0http://blogs.esanjoaquin.com/san-joaquin-county-government-blog/2016/08/17/seiu-storms-county-building-demands-contract/Calculating SEIU pay raiseshttp://feedproxy.google.com/~r/san-joaquin-county-government-blog/~3/3QQjfjBpdgY/
http://blogs.esanjoaquin.com/san-joaquin-county-government-blog/2016/07/11/calculating-seiu-pay-raises/#commentsMon, 11 Jul 2016 20:18:31 +0000Wes Bowershttp://blogs.esanjoaquin.com/san-joaquin-county-government-blog/?p=1498We received an email last Friday asking why readers are never told the pay scales currently used in my SEIU strike coverage last week.
The reason is simple. There are six bargaining units in the SEIU, with at least 59 different job classifications ranging from lab techs to building inspectors to probation officers to mental health clinicians to nurses to custodians.
Just finding the base pay for all 59 positions — many of which have four different pay grades — and then calculating the county’s proposed salary increase opposed to the union’s proposed increase would require me to only write one story each week while I crunched numbers.
Readers are free to crunch numbers on their own if they wish. The county’s offering a 2 percent pay raise this year, the union wants 4 percent.
Pay grades can be found here: www.sjgov.org/WorkArea/DownloadAsset.aspx?id=9638. A list of the 59 SEIU positions can be found here: http://www.seiu1021.org/wp-content/blogs.dir/74/files/2016/06/1219_001-1.pdf.
]]>0http://blogs.esanjoaquin.com/san-joaquin-county-government-blog/2016/07/11/calculating-seiu-pay-raises/FPPC reports slightly offhttp://feedproxy.google.com/~r/san-joaquin-county-government-blog/~3/Zv5_2V_nimw/
http://blogs.esanjoaquin.com/san-joaquin-county-government-blog/2016/05/16/fppc-reports-slightly-off/#commentsMon, 16 May 2016 21:16:51 +0000Wes Bowershttp://blogs.esanjoaquin.com/san-joaquin-county-government-blog/?p=1496Ah, election time, when people want to know which candidates are spending how much on what, and who is donating to whom.
My story Monday regarding campaign finances for San Joaquin County Supervisor candidates has erroneous figures with regards to cash on hand.
What happened was total expenditures for the year-to-date were subtracted from the total contributions made for the year-to-date.
In reality, and according to the Form 460s that each candidate files with the Fair Political Practices Commission and the San Joaquin County Registrar of Voters, ending cash balances are calculated a different, more calculated way.
You take the ending cash balance from the previous filing period and add cash contributions (not non-monetary contribution values), then subtract cash expenditures made.
So, here are the cash balances as of the end of April, as reported on Form 460, and not by what would seem to be the more reasonable way of just subtracting expenditures from contributions.
District 1:
Moses Zapien : $76,997
Tom Patti: $60,028
Elbert Holman: $11,716

]]>0http://blogs.esanjoaquin.com/san-joaquin-county-government-blog/2016/05/16/fppc-reports-slightly-off/Probation officers pay raiseshttp://feedproxy.google.com/~r/san-joaquin-county-government-blog/~3/yvPOJwzRry8/
http://blogs.esanjoaquin.com/san-joaquin-county-government-blog/2016/03/22/probation-officers-pay-raises/#commentsTue, 22 Mar 2016 16:33:49 +0000Wes Bowershttp://blogs.esanjoaquin.com/san-joaquin-county-government-blog/?p=1494In Monday’s article regarding pay increases for San Joaquin County probation officers, http://www.recordnet.com/news/20160321/probation-officers-to-receive-pay-increase, I unknowingly omitted how much officers currently make, and how much they stand to make with the increase.

There are four probation officer position classifications, as well as part-time officers. Each position has five steps or pay grades.

Here is what the four positions currently make annually in the county probation department, from the lowest to the highest pay grade:

These salaries will increase by 2 percent each year for the next three years. Instead of calculating each year’s increase, I calculated what each pay grade stands to make by the end of the three years. I rounded all decimal points upward when calculating, as is done when doing your taxes.

]]>0http://blogs.esanjoaquin.com/san-joaquin-county-government-blog/2016/03/22/probation-officers-pay-raises/South Burkett Avenue house ordeal continueshttp://feedproxy.google.com/~r/san-joaquin-county-government-blog/~3/BxXX00OxIAQ/
http://blogs.esanjoaquin.com/san-joaquin-county-government-blog/2016/03/01/south-burkett-avenue-house-ordeal-continues/#commentsTue, 01 Mar 2016 19:41:11 +0000Wes Bowershttp://blogs.esanjoaquin.com/san-joaquin-county-government-blog/?p=1492Late Monday, I received a call from Doris Carollo,the Visalia resident who has control over a house on S. Burkett Ave. in Stockton.

http://www.recordnet.com/article/20160228/NEWS/160229712/0/SEARCH

While she appreciated my effort to relate the ordeal she is going through with a local investor, she continued to attack the tenants who have moved in to her grandmother’s home with the help of said investor.

She said she told them to leave six months ago, and they haven’t. They do drugs. One of their sons collects social security for bogus reasons.

She then asked if I contacted the district attorney’s office. I said yes, and the office couldn’t comment because they had not received a complaint. This upset her, and she claimed she had spoken with the San Joaquin County Sheriff’s Office, which directed her to start eviction proceedings, and that should qualify as a complaint. Eviction proceedings could cost $3,000.

I had to remind Ms. Carollo that I am not an attorney, nor a representative of law enforcement, I encouraged her to get an attorney then file a formal complaint against the investor with either Stockton PD or the Sheriff.

When she said she couldn’t afford an attorney, I told her it’s the only way to get the ordeal resolved.

It’s a sad situation, but I hope that after reading my article, an attorney or member of local law enforcement will investigate further. Hopefully, an attorney out there will step forward to help either Carollo and her family, as well as the tenants in the home.

My article in today’s Record states that commercial growers would be allowed to cultivate. However, that was based on the supervisors’ April 7 meeting in which the county ban was introduced.

At that time, it appeared that only personal cultivation would be banned, pending approval of AB 34, which would have allowed commercial growers to obtain licenses from the state. It also would have allowed agencies to determine if they wanted commercial operations in their jurisdictions.

Apparently, it did not pass in 2015, therefore, commercial cultivation, as well as dispensaries, is also banned in the county under its ordinance.